The U.S. Supreme Court case Maryland Committee for Fair Representation et al. v. Tawes, Governor of Maryland, et al., 1963 revolved around the issue of legislative apportionment in the state of Maryland and whether it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs argued that there was a significant disparity in population among various districts which led to unequal representation in both houses of legislature - Senate and House Delegates; this they claimed was unconstitutional as per 'one person, one vote' principle established by Baker v Carr (1962). The defendants contended that historical considerations justified these disparities. However, after reviewing evidence presented before them about population distribution across districts and seats allocated to each district, Supreme Court ruled against State's apportionment scheme stating it indeed violated equal protection clause because substantial equality of population among various districts is prerequisite for fair representation.

In the dissenting opinion for Maryland Committee for Fair Representation et al. v. Tawes, Governor of Maryland, et al., Justice Harlan argued that the Court was overstepping its bounds by involving itself in matters of state political structure and apportionment which should be left to individual states' discretion. He contended that there were no clear constitutional guidelines or standards regarding how a state must divide its legislative districts and therefore it wasn't within the jurisdiction of federal courts to dictate such matters. He also expressed concern about potential consequences this decision might have on future cases related to local government structures and warned against judicial intrusion into areas traditionally managed by states themselves.